*XIII. DECLARATION:*
By submitting a CQ WW DX Contest log, and in consideration of the
efforts of the CQ WW DX Contest Committee to review and evaluate that
log, an entrant unconditionally and irrevocably agrees that he/she has:
1) read and understood the rules of the contest and agrees to be bound
by them, 2) operated according to all rules and regulations that pertain
to amateur radio for the station location, 3) agreed the log entry may
be made open to the public, and *4) accepted that the issuing of
disqualifications and other decisions of the Committee are official and
final. If an entrant is unwilling or unable to agree to all of the
foregoing, the entrant should not submit the entry or submit the entry
as a Checklog only.
*
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. (Bold added.)
Barry W2UP
On 3/4/2017 08:27, Rudy Bakalov wrote:
There will be a lot less frustration vented out here if the process was
principled and transparent; it is not. I am not referring to the mechanics of
how cheating is detected.
There seem to be no principles around how to handle suspected behavior. Only a
few weeks ago we learned about the extensive dialogue between the committee and
3V8SS. Now, there is zero dialogue between the two sides, only a request for
the recording. In other instances RBN data was being used as a reason to
suspect abuse of power even though such procedures are not disclosed upfront in
the published rules.
Why do we care about principles? Because the rules will never cover all
situations and circumstances. Principles, just like the constitution, guide us
how to make decisions when the rules are incomplete or do not exist.
I also believe that everybody deserves a fair trial, including by its peers.
CX2DK, 3V8SS, LZ2RS, etc. have every right to bring up their complaints to the
public and ask the judges to explain themselves. Democracy 101.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
On Mar 4, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
Fact not in evidence.
Again, they don't ask for audio unless they have suspicions about the log.
Apparently same concern, last year, no response. They let it go. You know the
old saying - Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Barry W2UP
On 3/4/2017 06:04, Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest wrote:
So in both instances, the log checker didn't have issues with the log, but
requested the recording anyway. W4PA didn't mention any issues either and only
reiterated that they asked for the recording and didn't get it.
Rudy N2WQ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|